file attachments

EF Team Triage: We are transitioning this project to GitHub (https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFramework6). As part of this transition we are bulk closing a large number
of issues in order that our new issue tracker will accurately reflect the work that our team is planning to complete on the EF6.x code base.

Moving forwards, our team will be fixing bugs, implementing small improvements, and accepting community contributions to the EF6.x code base. Larger feature work and innovation will happen in the EF Core code base (https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFramework).
Closing a feature request in the EF6.x project does not exclude us implementing the feature in EF Core. In fact, a number of popular feature requests for EF have already been implemented in EF Core (alternate keys, batching in SaveChanges, etc.).

This is a bulk message to indicate that this issue was closed and not ported to the new issue tracker. The reasons for not porting this particular issue to GitHub may include:

• It was a bug report that does not contain sufficient information for us to be able to reproduce it
• It was a question, but sufficient time has passed that it's not clear that taking the time to answer it would provide value to the person who asked it
• It is a feature request that we are realistically not going to implement on the EF6.x code base

Although this issue was not ported, you may still re-open it in the new issue tracker for our team to reconsider (https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFramework6/issues).
We will no longer be monitoring this issue tracker for comments, so please do not reply here.

Took me a long time to track it down because the error message was something like "Question not mapped". When I would at the data annotations on classes and the fluent API it was clear I had things configured properly.

To add to what Arthur said - we've fixed (for Code First only) the issue that prevented you having a Question class in your model and then another Question class that isn't in your model and lived in a different namespace. In EF6 we have
not enabled having two Question classes included in your model.

Just ran into this for the first time on EF 6.01 using DB First. To say I was disappointed that it was only fixed in CF was an understatement. I am at the end of a SOA proof of concept and putting two service calls through to two separate EDM's with one
shared table breaks the code. Both EDM's separated by assembly and namespace, but that obviously means nothing to EF.

Is there an ETA on a fix to this or should I be looking at other ORM's that can handle my situation?

Is there an ETA to fix this? Just as the previous comments, we are building software based on SOA. Each boundary has its on schema.
Order in Sales have a different meaning as
Order in Inventory. Now we are forced to pollute the code base due to EF restrictions by having a name different than the ubiquitous naming in each context.
Very painful

We are providing data services based on EF where we need versioning. So new versions are put in seperate namespaces (not changing the class name). this caused the same issue. Now we need to pollute old versoins with a postfix to work arround the issue.

I would like to up vote the priority of this fix as well. Needs to get fixed asap. Modern programming languages have namespaces and EF needs to respect this. As many have said, the only work around is seriously polluting your Models with less than ideal
naming conventions.

cragun's comments are exactly my own and far more restrained. that this defect is considered low impact is nonsense - it makes using ef like shopping for tourist novelties in a tacky airport gift shop.

I agree. I have several applications, each which has its own schema, that I would like to import into the EF. Now I'm going to have to separate my EDMX files instead of having 1, or create an extremely ugly naming convention in the db.

I just ran into this issue for the first time--using EF 5. Funny thing is, this issue hasn't been happening until now, and my code's been in PROD for 6 months. We recently enhanced the database, adding 14 new tables. We then added the new entities and
classes, and now two of the entities/tables that have the same name, but are in different DB schema and namespaces are, I presume, conflicting.

Rowan - please tell us if this issue is going to be fixed in EF 7. It is a major limitation if you are building large scale enterprise systems (as we are and many others in the above comments, clearly).

More generally, now that the code base & issues list has shifted to GitHub - is anyone paying attention to issues on CodePlex now. This one has 87 votes, but I can't find any equivalent on the GitHub issues list.

I'm running EF 6.1 and still running into this issue.
It has been reported on Sep 4, 2012 and still absolutely nothing to fix it, not even a temporary fix that does not involve horrible conventions for naming our tables.

This should really have a much higher priority than it has been getting... it's ridiculous...

I can't believe this bug has been unfixed for so long. I'm working on a conversion project where 6-10 databases being converted are going to have the same table names. I have been using database first without issues until I just now ran into the first
database that has duplicate table names. This should really have a higher priority and get fixed, it's pretty sad that a bug of this magnitude can go unfixed for 4-5 years...

I have a project with 3 modules, which share class names, mapped under different SQL schemas. All went fine and dandy (except the fact that you can enable migrations on a single context) with the Code First implementation, until I've hit the aforementioned
problem. Thanks Microsoft, next time I'll think twice before choosing EF against NHibernate.

In case it helps, in one of the most recent minor releases of EF6.x we added annotations that can be put in entity types in the EDMX to identify the CLR type they will be mapped at runtime deterministically, which avoids scanning assemblies for all possible
candidate CLR types and avoids the exception.

The EDMX needs to be edited manually to add the annotations since the tools won't add them. For a simple model with a Person entity, the ConceptualModels section of the EDMX would look like this: